Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Sarah Blumberg and Jennifer McMillen were working at an ice cream shop. A male entered the store. After placing an order, he brandished a gun and ordered one of the employees to put the store's money into a bag. He forced the employees into the store's walk-in freezer. The employees stayed there until they heard a customer enter the store. They called the police. No physical evidence was recovered. They helped the police prepare separate composite pictures of the robber. Nine days later, Blumberg observed a photographic line-up which included D's picture. She identified him as the robber. Five months later, McMillen saw the same photographic line-up. She identified D. P's case was the eyewitness identifications. D offered an alibi defense, maintaining that another person had committed the robbery. D wanted Michael G. Johnson, Ph.D., J.D., an expert in the field of eyewitness identification, to testify. P objected because it would not assist the jury in deciding the identification issue. The court refused to admit Johnson's testimony. The court allowed a proffer for the record and the expert's testimony would have covered topics: 1. the process of eyewitness identification; 2. the relationship between stress and memory of an event; 3. cross-racial identification; 4. the confidence the witnesses have in the accuracy of their identifications and the actual accuracy of their identifications; 5. the effect of time on the accuracy of memory; and 6. the suggestibility of the photographic line-up used in this case. D was convicted and appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.